skip to main content
article

Delaying decisions in variable concern hierarchies

Published:20 October 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Concern-Oriented Reuse (CORE) proposes a new way of structuring model-driven software development, where models of the system are modularized by domains of abstraction within units of reuse called concerns. Within a CORE concern, models are further decomposed and modularized by features. This paper extends CORE with a technique that enables developers of high-level concerns to reuse lower-level concerns without unnecessarily committing to a specific feature selection. The developer can select the functionality that is minimally needed to continue development, and reexpose relevant alternative lower-level features of the reused concern in the reusing concern's interface. This effectively delays decision making about alternative functionality until the higher-level reuse context, where more detailed requirements are known and further decisions can be made. The paper describes the algorithms for composing the variation (i.e., feature and impact models), customization, and usage interfaces of a concern, as well as the concern's realization models and finally an entire concern hierarchy, as is necessary to support delayed decision making in CORE.

References

  1. M. Acher, P. Collet, P. Lahire, and R. B. France. Familiar: A domain-specific language for large scale management of feature models. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6):657–681, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. O. Alam, J. Kienzle, and G. Mussbacher. Concernoriented software design. In MODELS 2013, pages 604–621. Springer, 2013. ISBN 978-3-642-41532-6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. Bak, K. Czarnecki, and A. Wasowski. Feature and meta-models in clafer: Mixed, specialized, and coupled. In SLE’10, pages 102–122. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. Automated reasoning on feature models. In CAiSE’05, pages 491–503. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Blume and A. W. Appel. Hierarchical modularity. ACM TOPLAS, 21(4):813–847, July 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Bosch. Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach. Pearson Education, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Capozucca, B. H. Cheng, G. Georg, N. Guelfi, P. Istoan, and G. Mussbacher. Requirements Definition Document for a Software Product Line of Car Crash Management Systems, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. Chen and M. Ali Babar. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 53(4):344–362, Apr. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. W. Eisenecker. Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(2):143–169, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. E. W. Dijkstra. A discipline of programming, volume 1. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Dinkelaker, R. Mitschke, K. Fetzer, and M. Mezini. A dynamic software product line approach using aspect models at runtime. In Fifth Domain-Specific Aspect Languages Workshop, volume 39, page 40, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. B. Duran, G. Mussbacher, N. Thimmegowda, and J. Kienzle. On the reuse of goal models. In SDL 2015, volume 9369 of LNCS, pages 141–158. Springer, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. E. Figueiredo, N. Cacho, C. Sant’Anna, M. Monteiro, U. Kulesza, A. Garcia, S. Soares, F. Ferrari, S. Khan, F. Castor Filho, and F. Dantas. Evolving software product lines with aspects: An empirical study on design stability. In ICSE’08, pages 261–270. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. V. Gurp and C. Prehofer. From SPLs to open, compositional platforms. In Combining the Advantages of Product Lines and Open Source. Dagstuhl, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Hallsteinsen, M. Hinchey, S. Park, and K. Schmid. Dynamic software product lines. Computer, 41(4):93– 95, April 2008. ISSN 0018-9162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, CMU, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. C. Kästner, K. Ostermann, and S. Erdweg. A variability-aware module system. In OOPSLA ’12, pages 773–792. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Kienzle, W. Al Abed, and J. Klein. Aspect-Oriented Multi-View Modeling. In AOSD’09, pages 87 – 98. ACM Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Kienzle, N. Guelfi, and S. Mustafiz. Crisis Management Systems: A Case Study for Aspect-Oriented Modeling. Transactions on AOSD, 7:1 – 22, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. C. W. Krueger. Software reuse. ACM Comput. Surv., 24:131–183, June 1992. ISSN 0360-0300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. D. McIlroy. Mass-produced software components. Proc. NATO Conf. on Software Engineering, Garmisch, Germany, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. G. Mussbacher, D. Amyot, and J. Whittle. Composing goal and scenario models with the aspect-oriented user requirements notation based on syntax and semantics. In Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering, pages 77–99. Springer, 2013. ISBN 978-3-642-38639-8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. L. Parnas. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15 (12):1053–1058, Dec. 1972. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. G. Perrouin, J. Klein, N. Guelfi, and J.-M. Jezequel. Reconciling automation and flexibility in product derivation. In SPLC’08, pages 339–348, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F. J. van der Linden. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, 2005. ISBN 3540243720. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Schöttle, N. Thimmegowda, O. Alam, J. Kienzle, and G. Mussbacher. Feature modelling and traceability for concern-driven software development with Touch-CORE. In MODULARITY Companion, pages 11–14. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Schröter, N. Siegmund, and T. Thüm. Towards modular analysis of multi product lines. In SPLC’13 Workshops, pages 96–99. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. N. Siegmund, M. Rosenmüller, M. Kuhlemann, C. Kästner, S. Apel, and G. Saake. Spl conqueror: Toward optimization of non-functional properties in software product lines. Software Quality Control, 20(3-4): 487–517, Sept. 2012. ISSN 0963-9314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. T. van der Storm. Variability and component composition. In Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools, pages 157–166. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R. van Ommering. Building product populations with software components. In ICSE’02, pages 255–265. ACM, 2002. ISBN 1-58113-472-X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. M. Voelter and I. Groher. Product line implementation using aspect-oriented and model-driven software development. In SPLC’07, pages 233–242, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Delaying decisions in variable concern hierarchies

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!